wiggin

rotateleftbyte said:

Quote
If Apple updates its software in a way that the company claims will substantively change battery performance, we will conduct fresh tests," the original report said.

IF is the problem. CR could just as equally say, "Nope, we don't think Apple has done anything that will change our results. We stand by our results."

The CR tests should be repeatable by anyone who chooses to perform them. If their original 'test steps' didn't state that they'd disabled the browser cache then CR deserve to get an awful lot of flack.
Software and System testing is all about repeatability. AFAIK, the CR results were anything but that.

What would really be interesting is to repeat the test both with and without the cache disabled after Apple's bug fix is released. Remember, the article also stated that this also led Apple to discover a bug in their own code that made the results even worse. If CR's test script is set up to repeatedly load the same page as a simulation of random web browsing, then having the cache enabled would essentially be cheating in favor of better battery performance as the entire page would already be in the cache. Perhaps this test protocol, including disabling the cache, worked fine in past iterations of testing with other Macs, but when combined with this Apple bug it was no longer a valid test.

Clearly CR needs to update their testing protocol, but I'm not sure I'm ready to go so far as to say it was malicious as some here are suggesting. Keep in mind, there have been many other reports of questionable battery life reported by other sources. Perhaps this bug Apple discovered in their own code contributed to those other reported experiences as well. Apple has previously stated that there was no software issues related to battery life. This incident has proven that to be false.

And I hope this bug they are reportedly fixing also fixes the issue myself and others have reported with Sierra on earlier models (mine is a 2015 MBP). Something in Sierra is causing the discreet GPU to engage when it's not needed and was never engaged in previous OS versions. For example, opening the color picker in TextEdit activates the discreet GPU in Sierra, and it stays active until you exit TextEdit. Launching Quicken 2007 also engages the GPU in Sierra but not in any previous OS version. Quicken I could maybe accept as it's obviously older software that might not have the correct configuration. It was coded before there was automatic graphics switching in Mac laptops, but it did behave properly in OSes prior to Sierra. And that doesn't explain TextEdit which was released with Sierra.

jas99 said:

Rayz2016 said:

"... allowing bloggers and whiners to take control of the narrative. "

^^^^THIS.  So much disinformation ALL THE TIME. Is there no PR at Apple????

Steve Jobs was about half of Apple's PR, regardless of what products they were selling at the time. Now their PR is limited by their products...you have to have something to brag about, even if it's a minor product release or just an incremental upgrade, it's at least something you can talk about, even if only in hyperbole. If you leave an opening for dissenting voices (regardless if it's factual) it's already too late and you are stuck playing defense...which is all Apple has been doing for quite some time now.

Apple's marketing team must have been bored to tears for most of 2016 as they had nothing to promote.

canukstorm said:

One of the things not mentioned in this post but is mentioned in the TidBits article is that Apple is looking to unify PDF codebases for iOS / macOS

"Apple wants to use a common foundation for both iOS and macOS. However, it was released way too early, and for the first time (at least in my experience) Apple deprecated several features without caring about compatibility. And to make things worse, lots of former features are now broken or not implemented at all, meaning that we had to add lots of workarounds or implement stuff on our own. And there’s still work left to be done.

10.12.2 introduces new issues (it seems that Apple wants to fix at least the broken compatibility now) and of course fixed almost none of the other issues. It’s not only DEVONthink — a lot of other applications (such as EndNote, Skim, Bookends, and EagleFiler) are also affected."

http://tidbits.com/article/16966

Perhaps it would've been prudent for Apple to release the new codebase with macOS 10.13 after major bugs were ironed out.

So basically you are saying Apple is now using the same method to update it's frameworks as it has been using for years with its user-facing applications (iMovie, FCP, Photos, etc). Namely, rather than fully develop it's long-range improvement strategies and have an orderly transition to the new technology, let's kill off and replace the existing stable, full-featured software with half-baked, feature-poor replacements and make users suffer while we slowly add back in the features the old software had all along.

rogifan_new said:

I hope this is BS. Another year of mostly incremental changes to Apple Watch is no good. If all we're getting is a new SiP and watchOS 4 Apple might as well not release a new watch this year. 

I went with a Garmin watch over Apple mainly for battery life reasons (but several other lessor reasons as well), so if Apple can make significant gains in battery life it would be a very good thing.

But I'm curious, what hardware and/or sensor do you think the Apple watch is missing? Other than a barometric altimeter, which some hiking watches have but which few people would need, what feature is the Apple watch missing that you are so desperately looking for?

The only thing I can think of is a direct cellar connection which would be stupid to implement given the current technology unless you are willing to charge your watch every 4 hours. I'm sure they are working on figuring that out, but how about we get a watch that last for more than 18 hours on a charge (Apple's official battery life spec) before we start adding a bunch of new power hungry hardware features.

zoetmb said:

It's not that I don't believe the rumors, after all - Apple hasn't updated the Express to ac, but I think we'll know for sure if we see Apple Retail and/or the website selling a third party router.

Considering that Apple has been removing ports from machines because "everything is wireless anyway", it doesn't really make sense to me that they'd abandon this line.   On the other hand, while the supposed team was still working on this product line, what the hell were they doing day-to-day?  Airport Extreme 802.11ac and Airport Time Capsule 802.11ac were released in June of 2013, 3 1/2 years ago!   Airport Express 802.11n was released in June of 2012.  

Maybe they got rid of the team (or moved them on to something else) because they were unproductive.  Maybe a new team is coming in.   Although Apple doesn't make printers, scanners, computer speakers, monitors and many other desktop devices, I consider their router to be part of the ecosystem.  I'm surprised Ive would want a third-party's router sitting on a desk, although if he doesn't care about a monitor, then he wouldn't care about the router (which in the case of third party routers don't necessarily sit on a desk anyway). 

My suspicion is that the Airport and Apple TV teams will be merged into a single line of mesh and smart home products. Not necessarily a complete line of smart products like light switches and garage door openers, but things that complement Apple's other technologies like Airplay, network connections, etc. One device acts as the hub (this could be a router or Apple TV or some new device), and other devices can be added to the mesh network as needed. Either to extend the wifi network or add capabilities like Airplay, a remote Ethernet connection, network storage, etc.